You see.
We really don't give a toss, and don't stand any chance due to money:
INPE data published in mid-January found that deforestation in the Amazon in northern Brazil had soared 85 percent in 2019, clearing 9,166 sq km - the highest number in at least five years - versus 4,946 sq km cleared in 2018.
The sharp increase overlapped the first year in office of President Jair Bolsonaro, a climate change skeptic who has eased restrictions on exploiting the Amazon's vast riches.
Amazon deforestation for January hits record
Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil more than doubled in January compared with the previous year, according to official data ...www.channelnewsasia.com
And we think we are going to solve such issues by our efforts:
More than 50,000 urban trees to be planted in England
More than 50,000 urban trees to be planted in England
The government is giving £10m to fund 13 tree planting projects across England.www.bbc.co.uk
I've not done the maths, but I suspect that's not going to balance 9,166 sq km !
In a way I can't blame them. We are rich and live in a wealthy country with a high standard of general living. Many people there don't and they are using what the have/find to raise themselves up.
We can either stop them by force, not a great idea! or basically give them money so they don't have to, but then we've giving them money for not doing bad things which is a bit iffy.
Either way, we're screwed I'd say.
Interesting Video Clip about man made? global warming.
One guy (AUS) actually with balls? to stand up and say things no one else seems brave enough to say.
And a utterly terrible young biased interviewer who simply was so brainwashed he was simply unwilling to listen to anything the other guy said and kept interrupting him.
Comments in the video interesting also.....
It's refreshing to hear someone actually brave, and educated? enough to speak clearly from an opposing view to the current only acceptable viewpoint.
If anything, the attitude of the young interviewer, simply unwilling to look or for one second question his own viewpoint when presented with something from the other guy actually makes me more willing to listen to the older guy myself.
It's easy enough to find any loony "with balls to stand up ... " That's what loonies do. Merely asserting a viewpoint is not being "brave enough to say".Interesting Video Clip about man made? global warming.
One guy (AUS) actually with balls? to stand up and say things no one else seems brave enough to say.
And a utterly terrible young biased interviewer who simply was so brainwashed he was simply unwilling to listen to anything the other guy said and kept interrupting him.
Comments in the video interesting also.....
It's refreshing to hear someone actually brave, and educated? enough to speak clearly from an opposing view to the current only acceptable viewpoint.
If anything, the attitude of the young interviewer, simply unwilling to look or for one second question his own viewpoint when presented with something from the other guy actually makes me more willing to listen to the older guy myself.
Having listened to him you understand what is going on and respond appropriately.Older guy is ignorant of reality and peddling lies based on selective use of data.
Interesting Video Clip about man made? global warming.
One guy (AUS) actually with balls? to stand up and say things no one else seems brave enough to say.
And a utterly terrible young biased interviewer who simply was so brainwashed he was simply unwilling to listen to anything the other guy said and kept interrupting him.
Comments in the video interesting also.....
It's refreshing to hear someone actually brave, and educated? enough to speak clearly from an opposing view to the current only acceptable viewpoint.
If anything, the attitude of the young interviewer, simply unwilling to look or for one second question his own viewpoint when presented with something from the other guy actually makes me more willing to listen to the older guy myself.
Plus it gets him votes.Well no comment on the interview but Roberts the world knows well as do NASA.
Personally i'll go with NASA every time over a politician.
Roberts frequently states that NASA has falsified climate data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic.[15][16] In November 2016, Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Roberts he was "mistaken" to assert NASA had removed data to hide Arctic warming in the 1940s.[15] Schmidt stated that the data was freely available online and that Roberts should check it himself, adding that he was surprised that Roberts was in fact a senator, and that his allegation of inappropriate temperature data adjustment is "the definition of denial".
Roberts' specific objection related to charts from Icelandic stations at Vestmannaeyjar and Teigarhorn, where temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s were adjusted down, removing the apparent warming recorded at that time. However a senior Icelandic meteorologist with a specialty in historical climatology emailed Roberts that the temperature adjustments, which were made because of a daytime bias and relocation of one of the stations, were "quite sound ... absolutely necessary and well founded".[15]
Malcolm Roberts (politician) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's truly the worrying part isn't it i am not saying he shouldn't have a view but he's a public figure the data is all not matters how much he denies it, therefore he has a responsibility to that data & the people he serves not just a goddamn conspiracy theory.Plus it gets him votes.
I don't like shooting people down, not giving them time to talk and not having an open mind on things.
If someone has views that are in conflict with the media accepted viewpoint.
Roberts is blatantly manipulating and outright lying which is something else.Roberts frequently states that NASA has falsified climate data to exaggerate warming in the Arctic.[15][16] In November 2016, Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Roberts he was "mistaken" to assert NASA had removed data to hide Arctic warming in the 1940s.
Flat Earth - the horizon and satellite TV.
Moon landing - one of the Apollo missions left a reflector so the Earth-Moon distance could be measured and lots of astronomers including amateurs have bounced lasers of it.
Oh - no moon, no tides.
Plus the discovery of He3 in the regolith, very useful for fusion in the future.
The problem is some people don't want it to be true. One person about a month ago on AVF suddenly claimed that you needed a one metre thick metal shield to get through the Van Allen belts.and one by one, using real experiments showed/explained away each of the points.
That's truly the worrying part isn't it i am not saying he shouldn't have a view but he's a public figure the data is all not matters how much he denies it, therefore he has a responsibility to that data & the people he serves not just a goddamn conspiracy theory.
The changes I have seen in my life back up global warming.
When I was little in Newcastle we always go snow in the winter and over the years it lessened.
Although I don't go back there now I hear enough to know snow is a rarity now, if it happens at all.
You really think that will work? After 2,000 years and more of people trying to do just that against a variety of beliefs?...
Rather than just rubbish them, take what they are saying, and deal with each point one at a time, to show that their points simply cannot be right.
Which shows that people can get addicted to anything.They aren't listening. Deeply-held beliefs are not easily swayed, least of all by calm logic. Look how long it took to persuade people tobacco is bad? And even then it took legislation.